PDA

View Full Version : A10 vs SU-25



Fury
31 Jul 04,, 12:07
Which one do you like? There was article like this in the combat aircraft magazine. Both aircrafts have huge cannon, A10 has the seven barrelled 30mm gun and SU-25 has twin barrelled 30mm.

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 15:34
The 7 bbl gun from the A-10 fires the extremely powerful 30x173mm cartridge. The gun of the Frogfoot fires a much less powerful round more comparable to the NATO 30mm 'light' round(as used by the Apache, etc).

The GAU-8/A Avenger cannon is 21 feet long and weighs over 3,000lbs. It has a cyclic rate of fire of 4200 rpm. It has an ammunition capacity of 1176rds of 30mm, typicly loaded in a 'party mix' of 1AP:2HE. With the USAF LASTE system the gun of the A-10 is far more employable and accurate than when it was first introduced.

The A-10 is also armored to the teeth with a titanium 'bathtub' that completely encircles the pilot.

The SU-25 is actually based on the loser of the competition that produced the A-10, the Northrop A-9.

BTW, at low altitude- an A-10 can outturn an F-16C.

Fury
31 Jul 04,, 16:56
Does GAU8 have saboted DU penetrators, Im asking because I've seen pictures from operation desert storm, there were T-55 tanks which had nearly a fist sized holes all over theri turret and hull so I figured those holes must have been done by A10 but I dont think the standard armor piercing indenciary round will penetrate T-55 armor not even from sides.

Praxus
31 Jul 04,, 17:36
They have DU rounds, I don't know if they are saboted or not.

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 18:22
They do have DU, they are not saboted, the ammunition is PGU-14 30mm HVAPDU. It has a muzzle velocity of 3,500fps- a slant range in excess of 1 mile, and will easily penetrate the top armor of ANY known main battle tank(Including the M-1 of all variants).

T-55's were killed in ODS1 with 25mm Bradley chain-gun fire, btw. A T-55 is vulnerable to practicly every weapons system on the modern battlefield, including the M-82A1 and M-2 .50 cals. using modern APDSDU ammunition.

The PGU-14 can penetrate over 6" of RHA, more than triple the thickness of the top armor on pretty much any battle tank around.

Praxus
31 Jul 04,, 18:29
They do have DU, they are not saboted, the ammunition is PGU-14 30mm HVAPDP. It has a muzzle velocity of 3,500fps- a slant range in excess of 1 mile, and will easily penetrate the top armor of ANY known main battle tank.

T-55's were killed in ODS1 with 25mm Bradley chain-gun fire, btw. A T-55 is vulnerable to practicly every weapons system on the modern battlefield, including the M-82A1 and M-2 .50 cals. using modern APDSDU ammunition.

The PGU-14 can penetrate over 6" of RHA, more than triple the thickness of the top armor on pretty much any battle tank around.

Do they carry any APDSDU rounds for M-2's on Bradleys and Abrams and such?

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 19:36
The M-1 Abrams can carry as much .50 SLAP(Saboted Light Armor Piercing) ammunition- or as little- as the Commander deems appropriate, or the supply chain can provide.

It is superior to ball in all respects.

The Bradley does not have a .50cal machinegun.

Fury
31 Jul 04,, 23:09
I suppose the SU-25 has the same cannon as the BMP-2 and 3 only a twin barrelled configuration. I have a shell on my desk that is 30x165, where is this from? there are no markings visible probably worn off.

Bill
31 Jul 04,, 23:18
30x165 is the cartridge of the SU-25.

Velocity for the HE round is 960m/s(3150fps) with a 388 gram projectile.

Velocity of the APDS Tungsten round is 1120m/s(3,670fps) with a 304 gram projectile.

Velocity for the A-10's GAU-8/A PGU-14 HVAPDU ammunition is 1,066 m/s (3,500fps) with a 390 gram projectile.


There is also APDSDU ammunition that is used in the GoalKeeper CIWS that uses the same GAU-8/A gun of the A-10. That ammunition has a Mv of 1,280 m/s (4,200fps) and a projectile weight of 325 grams. It's not used in the A-10 because the PGU-14 ammunition is cheaper, and is still overkill for pretty much anything.

Fury
01 Aug 04,, 11:29
Goalkeeper hmm..Doesn't the russian navy have same kind of point defense system with dual gatling type 30mm cannons and SAM missiles.
I just wathced a video of A-10 releasing four MK20 cluster bombs :eek: and all the sudden I don't like the idea of being an infantryman anymore :)

Bill
01 Aug 04,, 11:31
Yeah, the Soviet CIWS systems has two 30mm guns(again, the shorter 30x165 vs the GoalKeepers 30x173). I think that twin mount uses the SA-N-11 SAM.

I think the mount is called ZSU-630 CADS or something to that effect.

HawkEye
02 Aug 04,, 07:05
The A-10 was only built to carry the AN/GAU-8 30mm Avenger (later the GAU-8/A)

*A typical combat load for the GAU-8 would include 1,100 rounds of 30mm high explosive or armor piercing ammunition. The 30mm API is mixed with 30mm High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) at the factory and is called Combat Mix Ammunition. The ratio of API to HEI rounds in the Combat Mix is 4:1. Combat mix is a sequential mixture of DU and HEI rounds in which 1 HEI round followed by 4 DU rounds are fired by the AN/GAU-8 gatling gun. DU is the primary munition for the A/OA-10 in a combat environment.

*taken from http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/Gau8a_a.jpg


I have seen the gun (without the aircraft) at EOD school someone very smart thought up a really cool weapon system..... then needed a really good aircraft to carry it in the air..... that is the A-10. Pound for pound the best close-air support attack jet in the world IMO.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/Gau8a_k.jpg


Being on the wrong end of this weapon is never a good idea for anyone in the world.

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/Gau8a_s.jpg

The Members of the U.S.M.C. In Iraq (http://www.a-10.org/) seem to like the A-10 just fine.

Keeping Combat Troops alive is the job of the A-10 and the Combat Troops like having the A-10 around..... So I like having the A-10 around.




HawkEye

Bill
02 Aug 04,, 08:32
The gun was developed for the plane, not the other way around. The original prototypes flew with the M-61A1 Vulcan because the Avenger cannon was not ready yet.

I posted some pix i took of a GAU-8/A with the service bays open at NAS Willowgrove when i was visiting a stick actuator that posts at my board up there(it's about 25 minutes from my house). Good close up detailed stuff.

Here's a link:

GAU-8A Avenger pix (http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=1823)

Some buddies of mine over in Iraq also took the liberty of personalizing some 2.75" rockets for the army guy that runs by far the best A-10 site on the planet(Yes those rockets were fired in anger):

Warthog Territory - The A-10 Thunderbolt II (http://www.a-10.org)

HawkEye
02 Aug 04,, 08:36
The AIrcraft was built to get the Gun System in the Air.



HawkEye

Bill
02 Aug 04,, 08:50
No, it was built to provide CAS. The gun was invented to give it teeth. The concept of the plane, the A-X, came before the gun. The gun was developed for the A-X competition between the Fairchild YA-10 and Northrop YA-9.

If you want to talk A-10, try here:

www.a-10.org

There are dozens of A-10 personnel from crew dogs, to load toads, to hog drivers that post there regularly(lots of other military too). It is easily best a-10 website on the planet.

I've run it for the last 2 years since the former NCOIC of the Hill AFB Hog Depot stepped down.

DudBuster
04 Aug 04,, 06:49
Funny....

http://www.globalaircraft.org/planes/a-10_warthog.pl

The Warthog is literally built around its 30-mm General Electric GAU-8 Avenger seven barrel cannon, the most powerful gun ever fitted to an aircraft of this class. The A-10 features eleven underwing/underfuselage hardpoints and can carry 16,000lb or ordinance -- including AGM-65 Maverick anti-armor missiles, cluster bombs, LGBs, and AIM-9 AAMs.

Summary Copyright Charles M (JetWhiz)




HawkEye

griftadan
04 Aug 04,, 08:03
The 7 bbl gun from the A-10 fires the extremely powerful 30x173mm cartridge. The gun of the Frogfoot fires a much less powerful round more comparable to the NATO 30mm 'light' round(as used by the Apache, etc).

The GAU-8/A Avenger cannon is 21 feet long and weighs over 3,000lbs. It has a cyclic rate of fire of 4200 rpm. It has an ammunition capacity of 1176rds of 30mm, typicly loaded in a 'party mix' of 1AP:2HE. With the USAF LASTE system the gun of the A-10 is far more employable and accurate than when it was first introduced.

The A-10 is also armored to the teeth with a titanium 'bathtub' that completely encircles the pilot.

The SU-25 is actually based on the loser of the competition that produced the A-10, the Northrop A-9.

BTW, at low altitude- an A-10 can outturn an F-16C.

sniper, you make me feel dumb. how do you know all this shit?

DudBuster
04 Aug 04,, 08:20
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-history.htm

A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II

History

In the Vietnam conflict concentrated small-arms fire, ground-to-air missiles, and other more sophisticated defenses were particularly lethal to aircraft flying close-support missions. This situation resulted in dramatic changes in philosophy for the capabilities of aircraft conducting these missions. A need arose during the Vietnam conflict for a specialized aircraft capable of giving close air support to troops operating in the forward battle area. Needed was a heavily armed aircraft that could respond rapidly to a call for help and had the ability to destroy tanks, artillery batteries, and other types of enemy strongholds. Neither a fast aircraft nor one with long range was required; good maneuverability, extended loiter time in the battle area, and a lethal weapons load were needed. Low cost, easy maintenance with minimum turnaround time, and high survivability in the face of enemy ground fire were other characteristics desired. The aircraft was intended only for daytime operations in fair weather.

On 6 March, 1967, requests for proposals went to twenty-one companies for design studies on a low-cost attack aircraft given the designation A-X or "Attack-Experimental" aircraft. In the years following 1967, the A-X mission requirements began to change as the threat of Soviet armor and all-weather operations became embedded in military priorities.

In 1970, the requirements for the A-X mission were changed, and the Air Force issued a new request for proposals (RFP). Detailed requirements for such a close-air- support aircraft were issued by the USAF in May 1970. Six companies responded to the RFP. Fairchild- Republic and Northrop were given contracts for the construction of prototypes to be used in a flyoff competition from which a winner would be selected for production. Northrop's YA-9A and the Republic Aviation Division of Fairchild-Hiller's YA-10A became finalists in the contract bid. The Air Force gave each company funding in order to build prototypes of their aircraft for testing. At the end of the flight and maintenance comparison, on 10 January 1973, the US Air Force announced the selection of the Fairchild aircraft.

First flight of the aircraft occurred in May 1972, and the first squadron to be equipped with the A-10A became operational in October 1977.

Since the A-10 was built around the General Electric GAU-8 Avenger 30-mm cannon, its performance in testing was crucial in determining how many A-10's would be built. The GAU-8 Avenger exceeded all expectations. Not only was it extremely accurate, it could fire from 2100 to 4200 shots per minute without complications. The 30-mm projectile has two times the range, three times the mass, and half the time of flight of projectiles carried on CAS aircraft comparable to the A-10. After designers integrated the Avenger into the A-10's design, Fairchild-Republic made preparations for full production. Technicians at NASA's Ames Research Center provided additional wind tunnel tests of Fairchild's YA-10A late in 1973. Here, the A-10 received its final design refinements before entering mass production. As Fairchild delivered the first units, the A-10's unusual appearance and odd flight characteristics led to its nickname of the "Warthog".

The first production A-10 flew in October 1975. Delivery of this model began in March, 1976 to the 355th Tactical Training Wing at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. Fairchild Republic produced A-10s in their Farmington, N.Y., plant for 11 years. At peak production, 12 of these rugged aircraft rolled out each month. A-10 production ceased in 1984, twelve years after the first YA-10 rolled out of Fairchild-Republic's factory in 1972. In those twelve years, 715 A-10's were built and, with the exception of the two prototypes and one tandem-seat modification, the basic airframe design has remained unchanged.

Designed specially for the close air support mission and with the ability to combine large military loads, long loiter and wide combat radius, the A-10 proved to be vital assets to America and its allies during Operation Desert Storm. In the Gulf War, A-10s, with a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles. A-10's were seldom grounded due to maintenance problems or conditions unsuitable for flying during the Operation DESERT STORM. No other aircraft could carry as much ordnance over a target for so long, doling out and taking as much punishment, and return to an unimproved field to turn around quickly and strike at an enemy again.

According the Iraqi POWs, the single most recognizable and feared aircraft at low altitude was the Thunderbolt II. This black-colored jet was seen as deadly accurate, rarely missing its target. Seen conducting bombing raids three or four times a day, the A-10 was a seemingly ubiquitous threat. Although the actual bomb run was terrifying, the aircraft loitering around the target prior to target acquisition caused as much, if not more, anxiety since the Iraqi soldiers were unsure of the chosen target.

*End Paste*



HawkEye

DudBuster
04 Aug 04,, 08:28
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/GAU-8_Avenger

GAU-8 Avenger

The GAU-8/A Avenger is a 30 mm, seven-barrel Gatling gun that is mounted exclusively on the United States Air Force's A-10 Thunderbolt II. It is the largest (it is the size of a Volkswagen Beetle), heaviest and most powerful aircraft gun in the United States military. Developed specifically to be a "tank buster", the gun can deliver a rate of fire of an astonishing 3,900 shots per minute.

The gun usually fires a mix of ammunition: utilizing four High Explosive Incendiary (HEI) rounds followed by a Armor Piercing Incendiary (API) round. However, the GAU-8 is also capable of firing rounds made from depleted uranium.

Developed as part of the A-10 program by Fairchild Republic, both the aircraft and the gun entered service in 1977. The gun is no longer in production. It was produced by General Electric, though General Dynamics Armament Systems is now responsible for support.



A-10 Thunderbolt II

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/A-10_Thunderbolt_II

The A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II, often known as the "Warthog," is the first US Air Force aircraft specially designed for close air support of ground forces. This simple, effective and survivable twin-engine jet aircraft can be used against all ground targets, including tanks and other armored vehicles.

The A-10/OA-10 have excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and are highly accurate weapons-delivery platforms. They can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time and operate under 1,000-foot ceilings (303.3 m) with 1.5-mile (2.4 km) visibility. Their wide combat radius and short takeoff and landing capability permit operations in and out of locations near front lines. Using night vision goggles, A-10/OA-10 pilots can conduct their missions during darkness.

Thunderbolt IIs have Night Vision Imaging Systems (NVIS), goggle compatible single-seat cockpits forward of their wings and a large bubble canopy which provides pilots all-around vision. The pilots are protected by 900 pounds (400 kg) of titanium armor (referred to as a "titanium bathtub") that also protects parts of the flight-control system. The redundant primary structural sections allow the aircraft to enjoy better survivability during close air support than did previous aircraft.

The aircraft can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high explosive projectiles up to 23mm. Their self-sealing fuel cells are protected by internal and external foam and are designed not to explode if shot. Manual systems back up their redundant hydraulic flight-control systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or a wing is lost.

The Thunderbolt II can be serviced and operated from bases with limited facilities near battle areas. Many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable left and right, including the engines, main landing gear and vertical stabilizers.

Avionics equipment includes communications, inertial navigation systems, fire control and weapons delivery systems, target penetration aids and night vision goggles. Their weapons delivery systems include heads-up displays that indicate airspeed, altitude, dive angle, navigation information and weapons aiming references; a low altitude safety and targeting enhancement system (LASTE) which provides constantly computing impact point free-fall ordnance delivery; and Pave Penny laser-tracking pods under the fuselage. The aircraft also have armament control panels, and infrared and electronic countermeasures to handle surface-to-air missile threats. Installation of the Global Positioning System is currently underway for all aircraft.

The Thunderbolt II's 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun fires at a rate of 3,900 rounds per minute and can defeat an wide array of ground targets up to and including heavily armored main battle tanks. Some of their other equipment includes an inertial navigation system, electronic countermeasures, target penetration aids, self-protection systems, and AGM-65 Maverick and AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles.

The first production A-10A was delivered to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Arizona, in October 1975. It was designed specially for the close air support mission and had the ability to combine large military loads, long loiter and wide combat radius, which proved to be vital assets to the United States and its allies during Operation Desert Storm and Operation Noble Anvil. In the Gulf War, A-10s had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles.
The A-10s were an unwelcome addition to the Air Force arsenal. Air Force officials prized the high-flying, high-performance F-15 and F-16 jets, and were determined to leave the dirty work of close air support to Army helicopters.

In the 1980s, military planners intended the A-10s to fly low, slow missions to counter divisions of Soviet tanks stationed in eastern Europe.

In 1991, the planes proved their mettle in the Persian Gulf War, destroying more than 1,000 tanks, 2,000 military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces. Five A-10s were shot down during the war, far fewer than military planners expected.

The aircraft again saw service in the 1999 Kosovo War, but due to the rules of engagement imposed by the Clinton administration, which was paranoid about having an American aircraft shot down and thus possibly taking casualties, the aircraft did not perform well. During the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan A-10's did not take part in the initial stages. However, they were later based at Bagram air base and took part in subsequent operations, including Operation Anaconda in March 2002. Due to far less restrictive rules of engagement, the aircraft performed a great deal better than in 1999. Early in 2003, the aircraft saw service over Iraq again when America and Britain invaded the country and deposed Saddam Hussein. Sixty A-10s were deployed, and one was shot down near Baghdad International Airport by Iraqi fire late in the campaign.

The A-10 is scheduled to stay in service with the USAF until 2028, when it will be replaced by the Joint Strike Fighter.

*End Paste*




HawkEye

DudBuster
04 Aug 04,, 08:32
Forgot one......

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Northrop_YA-9

Northrop YA-9

The Northrop YA-9 was a prototype attack aircraft developed for the USAF, but passed over in preference for the Fairchild YA-10 that became the A-10 Thunderbolt II in service.

Both aircraft were designed in response to an air force requirement for a Close Air Support (CAS) aircraft that could operate from forward positions on a battlefield. This meant an aircraft that would need to be able to operate from relatively rough fields, carry heavy armour, and be able to loiter over target areas. Apart from aircraft themselves, the A-X programme was also developing a powerful cannon for the winning plane to carry. Eventually, this would result in the GAU-8 Avenger, but for trials, the YA-9 and YA-10 were both equipped with the smaller M61 Vulcan.

It is alleged that the YA-9 more strongly impressed the Soviets than the US Air Force, and the Sukhoi Su-25 was largely based on spy footage of this aircraft.

A fly-off of the two prototypes took place October 10 and December 9 1973, with the YA-10 declared the winner on January 18 1973. The two YA-9 prototypes were subsequently relegated to NASA for continued flight testing before being quickly retired. One is preserved at the March Field Museum at March Air Force Base, and the other at the Castle Air Museum at Atwater, California. Before going to the museums, the YA-9s' custom-built engines were removed and were later mated to a C-8 Buffalo airframe as part of the NASA-Boeing joint QSRA study into a quiet short-haul commercial aircraft.

*End Paste*



HawkEye

Bill
04 Aug 04,, 19:46
You can add all the cut and paste links you want HawkEye, or you can go to a-10.org(if you can behave yourself), and ASK the former NCOIC of Hill AFB Hog Depot, who is currently writing a book on the A-10.

He posts under the name Diceman, and he knows more about the A-10 than the rest of the world combined. He will answer any and all questions you may have about the A-10, including the full history of the GAU-8/A, and it's development.

The A-X requirement came before the Avenger.

Bill
04 Aug 04,, 19:49
griftadan, thanx for the compliment. :)

I am lucky enough to be board admin at www.a-10.org , the online home of the A-10.

Therefore i've had tremendous access to the Warthog community, and have learned a great deal about the most lethal tank killer ever devised. :)

It's a great site- feel free to check it out.

Garry
10 Aug 04,, 16:56
these two weapons were intended for different goals and uses. Americans were worried about number of Russian tanks in Europe so they wanted something to take care of it. A-10 is a "close air support" and tanks were always its primary targets. The smaller Su-25 is more intended for broader use than only tanks. You can see it even from the weaponry systems. The basic Su-25 weapon are unguided rockets, not a gun....

Each does what it was intended for.....

bigross86
12 Aug 04,, 14:06
The A-10's mission IS CAS, but why do you assume that it's primary targets are tanks? It's primary targets are anything the grunts on the ground call to be attacked. And why do you think the Su-25's main weapons are unguided rockets? the Su-25 can carry: Cannon: 1 GSh-6-N-30 30mm rotary
AS-7/9/11/12, AA-8 Aphid, FAB-250, UV-32-57, FAB-500, 500kg LGB, FAB-250

Those include A2A. A2G, rockets, missiles, etc...

Bill
12 Aug 04,, 14:46
Both aircraft are intended to fill the same role.

The A-10 just fills it better.

Proyas
06 Oct 08,, 00:33
I was just thinking of making a thread about whether the A-10 or Su-25 was the better CAS plane, but I see someone else has done it already. Anyone care to add to this debate without getting carried away with the GAU-8?

Here are some new questions to consider:
-Which plane is more reliable?
-Which plane is more worth the money?

Shipwreck
15 Oct 08,, 16:55
the Su-25 can carry: Cannon: 1 GSh-6-N-30 30mm rotary

NOPE.

The Su-25 CANNOT carry a 30mm rotary cannon.

The Su-25's built-in gun is the twin-barrel 30mm GSh-30 cannon (http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh30.htm).

The Su-25 can also carry two SPPU-22-1 pods (each with one twin-barrel 23mm GSh-23L cannon (http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh23L.htm) and 260 rounds) or two SPPU-687 pods (each with one single barrel 30mm GSh-301 cannon (http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh301.htm) and 150 rounds).

Shipwreck
15 Oct 08,, 17:22
I suppose the SU-25 has the same cannon as the BMP-2 and 3 only a twin barrelled configuration.

BMP-2 uses the single-barrel 30mm 2A42 cannon (http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/2a42.htm).

BMP-3 uses the single-barrel 30mm 2A72 cannon (http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/2a72.htm).


I have a shell on my desk that is 30x165, where is this from? there are no markings visible probably worn off.

Electric-primed : aircraft and naval applications

Percussion-primed : land-based applications

Shipwreck
15 Oct 08,, 17:47
There is also APDSDU ammunition that is used in the GoalKeeper CIWS that uses the same GAU-8/A gun of the A-10. That ammunition has a Mv of 1,280 m/s (4,200fps) and a projectile weight of 325 grams.

APDS-T :
* projectile mass : 225 grams
* muzzle velocity : 1,225 mps
* muzzle energy : 168,820 joules

bugs
05 Nov 08,, 08:53
I was just thinking of making a thread about whether the A-10 or Su-25 was the better CAS plane, but I see someone else has done it already. Anyone care to add to this debate without getting carried away with the GAU-8?

Here are some new questions to consider:
-Which plane is more reliable?
-Which plane is more worth the money?

Question 1 - To close to tell
Question 2- Irelevant. Nobody else except the US has A-10 and they can afford it.

jlvfr
05 Nov 08,, 14:32
Just a small reminder, folks: you are all talking about cannon and very little about the other "stuff": both can carry a huge bomb/missile load; by the time they actually use the cannon, there won't be much left anyway...

Both have massive armour, structural reinforcement and redundancy. The A-10s toughness is legendary, but I recently saw (here, I think?) a pick of an SU-25 that got hit close to an engine exahust, loosing a huge chunk of that area... and it still managed to return home.

The A-10 has far better all-around vision, but this can be argued to have come at the cost of putting the pilot's back out of the titanium "tub"...

But the A-10s main winning point his it's electronics: currently, the A-10 wins hands down any in-service version of the SU-25 (altough there are some prototypes that...); this not only allows the A-10 to fly by night with no problems, but also allows it to carry a vast array of guided munitions;

Kommunist
07 Nov 08,, 10:57
The A-10 has non-afterburning twin GE TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines, which are positioned in such a way so as to minimise ground fire hits. So, the Warthog is not capable of supersonic flight.

The Su-25 Frogfooot on the other hand has twin R-195 (MiG-21 variant) engine and this makes the plane capable of Mach1+ flight.

Other than that, both planes have superb low speed handling and great
armour protection.

But I feel that the A-10 has an advantage due to the American cutting edge avionics and better maintenance and upgradation of the fleet. The Su-25s in RuAF service havent received any major upgrades since 1989.

Also, Su-25 Laser designator doesn't work in foggy/cloudy weather conditions:rolleyes: (as the Russians found out in Chechnya). So it has to go lower if it wants to designate targets itslef, making it vulnerable to MANPADs.

Shipwreck
07 Nov 08,, 11:08
The Su-25s in RuAF service havent received any major upgrades since 1989.

I think NOT :


First upgraded Su-25SM attack aircraft handed over to the Russian Air Force
Released on Thursday, December 28, 2006

The Russian Air Force has taken delivery of the first six upgraded production Su-25SM attack aircraft at a handover ceremony taking place today at Aircraft Repair Plant #121 in Kubinka, near. The ceremony was attended by Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force General of Army Vladimir Mikhailov, who said that the Air Force would receive no less than six upgraded production Su-25SMs in 2007. "No less than six operational Su-25s will undergo production upgrading in 2007 and another eight in he said. According to him, a total of two air regiments will be equipped with upgraded Su-25SMs in the coming years.

In his words following the upgrade, "these aircraft, which are currently 17-18 years old, will be able to remain in service for another 30 years or more."

He believes the upgraded Su-25SM attack aircraft has reached 4+ generation aircraft capabilities. "As a result of the upgrade, we've received a 4+ generation aircraft able to handle 3.5 times more missions than the basic Su- said the commander-in-chief. Particularly, the attack aircraft has now acquired the capability to carry the medium-range R-73 missile with a range of up to.

Mikhailov added that the Su-25SM would be first handed over to the Air Force Pilot Training / in. "There, our best training specialists will 'teach' these aircraft fighting and learn their employment procedures for various engagement conditions," he said. "Then all the six planes will be handed over to a permanent readiness regiment deployed in Budennovsk."

Link (http://www.deagel.com/news/First-upgraded-Su-25SM-attack-aircraft-handed-over-to-the-Russian-Air-Force_n000001833.aspx)

Kommunist
07 Nov 08,, 11:21
I think NOT :

Point taken, but from what I gather from Wiki (Su-25):

"Today, Russia possesses a reduced fleet of Su-25s, which are operated by "Shturmovoi" Assault Regiments. The major variants used are the single-seat Su-25, the twin-seat Su-25UB, and the Su-25BM target-towing version. In addition, the Russian Air Force received a small number of Su-25T anti-tank variants, which have been tested with notable success under combat conditions in Chechnya. The Su-25 is also operated by the Russian Navy, both in standard land-based Su-25 and Su-25UB guise, as well as in the specialised Su-25UTG role as a carrier-operable trainer. Overall, 245 Su-25s are in service with the Russian Air Force, including 10 being operated by the navy as of 2008. A modernisation program of single-seat Su-25s to the Su-25SM variant is underway.The first modernised Su-25SM was delivered in August 2001, while another six were delivered in late December 2006 at Lipetsk air base."

I would hardly call 6 out 200+ aircraft a fleet/major/comprehensive upgrade.
Has anyone watched the documentary "Discovery: Wings of the Red Star-Su 25

Shipwreck
07 Nov 08,, 21:16
by the time they actually use the cannon, there won't be much left anyway...

Watch this :

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59c_1226013948

Repatriated Canuck
08 Nov 08,, 04:27
What a great video!! Thanks.

GGTharos
08 Nov 08,, 14:30
The A-10 has non-afterburning twin GE TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines, which are positioned in such a way so as to minimise ground fire hits. So, the Warthog is not capable of supersonic flight.

Nevermind the engines, it isn't aerodynamically built for it.



The Su-25 Frogfooot on the other hand has twin R-195 (MiG-21 variant) engine and this makes the plane capable of Mach1+ flight.

... and again, nevermind the engines, it isn't aerodynamically built for it. If you approach the mach in a Su-25 you will experience compression effects and lose control.

The Su-25 IS faster and has more energy than the A-10.


Other than that, both planes have superb low speed handling and great armour protection.

Slow speed handling goes to the A-10 here.

Shipwreck
08 Nov 08,, 18:58
Slow speed handling goes to the A-10 here.

How do you back this claim ?

Stitch
08 Nov 08,, 21:40
How do you back this claim ?

I don't have any hard-and-fast figures at my disposal, but one look at the wings will tell you the A-10 was designed with maneuverability in mind (right down to the downward-turned wingtips); the Su-25 wing looks like it was designed with efficient cruising in mind (slightly swept leading edge, relatively high aspect-ratio vs low aspect-ratio A-10 wing). The A-10 wing also incorporates high-lift devices, such as leading edge slats and Fowler-type flaps; I see no problem with the A-10 turning inside an Su-25 at comparable speeds.

GGTharos
09 Nov 08,, 00:59
^^^^

Exactly. It's a huge, long straight wing with low wing loading. It is is the -staple- of gliders, though is slightly different proportions ;)

The Su-25 and A-10 both have similar turn rates, but the A-10 will pull a tighter turn radius, so it likes one-circles and flat scissors against a Su-25.

Shipwreck
09 Nov 08,, 10:06
The Su-25 and A-10 both have similar turn rates, but the A-10 will pull a tighter turn radius

Source ?

GGTharos
09 Nov 08,, 14:25
Compared numbers from the A-10 -1 with someone who had their hands on the Su-25K flight manual.

Shipwreck
09 Nov 08,, 14:40
Compared numbers from the A-10 -1 with someone who had their hands on the Su-25K flight manual.

What are the numbers then ?

Kommunist
12 Nov 08,, 06:23
How far a pilot will be able to push his craft during need/actual combat is upto the pilot and the plane (other than airspeed, altitude, armament carried, fuel load) and not what is written in the manual.
Manuals define basic figures and safe limits not real limits.
(MiG29 data puts its max g-capabilty at 12g, but it is said that it is able to do more g's but risks damage to airframe. However, since 12g is way beyond what a human pilot can handle, so we are not in a position to verify this)

usplanefan67
12 Nov 08,, 09:03
Quote:
First upgraded Su-25SM attack aircraft handed over to the Russian Air Force
Released on Thursday, December 28, 2006

The Russian Air Force has taken delivery of the first six upgraded production Su-25SM attack aircraft at a handover ceremony taking place today at Aircraft Repair Plant #121 in Kubinka, near. The ceremony was attended by Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force General of Army Vladimir Mikhailov, who said that the Air Force would receive no less than six upgraded production Su-25SMs in 2007. "No less than six operational Su-25s will undergo production upgrading in 2007 and another eight in he said. According to him, a total of two air regiments will be equipped with upgraded Su-25SMs in the coming years.

In his words following the upgrade, "these aircraft, which are currently 17-18 years old, will be able to remain in service for another 30 years or more."

He believes the upgraded Su-25SM attack aircraft has reached 4+ generation aircraft capabilities. "As a result of the upgrade, we've received a 4+ generation aircraft able to handle 3.5 times more missions than the basic Su- said the commander-in-chief. Particularly, the attack aircraft has now acquired the capability to carry the medium-range R-73 missile with a range of up to.

Mikhailov added that the Su-25SM would be first handed over to the Air Force Pilot Training / in. "There, our best training specialists will 'teach' these aircraft fighting and learn their employment procedures for various engagement conditions," he said. "Then all the six planes will be handed over to a permanent readiness regiment deployed in Budennovsk."

Link

Shipwreck you can polish a turd and it still will be a turd!!!! A-10 hands down!!!

KenMac
28 Nov 08,, 00:50
I'd heard that a hundred su-25's were prioritised for upgrading after the Georgia action.

Anyone have any info on the program?

Major problem seems to the outdated electronics & weapons load, ie. lack of modern targeting & reconnaissance capabilies, & lack of fire & forget precision munitions.

Upgrading should bring it close enough to the A-10 that they would be pretty well interchangable in most missions.

Kernow
28 Nov 08,, 03:13
I'd go for the A-10/OA-10 Thunderbolt II.

Shipwreck
28 Nov 08,, 16:54
Shipwreck you can polish a turd and it still will be a turd!!!!

Why is it that you believe the Su-25 to be such a *turd* ?

GGTharos
29 Nov 08,, 01:21
It isn't a turd; like any aircraft, it has strengths and weaknesses.

The major weakness it has in this day and age are very out-dated avionics in the vast majority of those aircraft. The Su-25SK/SM upgrades should make it much more capable.

usplanefan67
05 Dec 08,, 01:38
Why is it that you believe the Su-25 to be such a *turd* ?


Those things were used pretty much as target practice in afganistan, to my knowledge no a-10's have been lost and have see a good nit of action so far. Even the afgan military acknowledged they were better.

GGTharos
05 Dec 08,, 02:37
Your knowledge is lacking :)


to my knowledge no a-10's have been lost and have see a good nit of action so far.

Kernow
05 Dec 08,, 02:40
I think it also depends on how good the Pilots are and how good their eyesight is, go ask the crew of the Warrior at the end of Gulf War 1, and I mean end, the war was over. Also the Warrior was flying Union Jack.

Nauticus
06 Dec 08,, 03:52
Just saw this gif (http://jj.am/gallery/v/GIFs/A10_strafes_motorcycles.gif.html) yesterday,can anyone confirm this is a GAU-8 firing or are they cluster bombs?Personally I think it's the GAU-8 firing at 3900 RPM, but some people think these are cluster bombs:confused:

Jimmy
06 Dec 08,, 06:28
Looks like gunfire to me. The bullets out of a GAU-8 are about the same size as cluster bomblets, heh. I'm pretty sure thats actually from the gun though.

jlvfr
06 Dec 08,, 11:50
Looks like gunfire to me. The bullets out of a GAU-8 are about the same size as cluster bomblets, heh. I'm pretty sure thats actually from the gun though.

Isn't the spread area a bit wide? I'd have thought the shots would be somewhat closer...

ASG
06 Dec 08,, 12:30
Also, Su-25 Laser designator doesn't work in foggy/cloudy weather conditions:rolleyes: (as the Russians found out in Chechnya).

That is a problem with Laser Designation Systems which even the west uses, so that is not specific to SU-25.

How to you expect to lase a target with a dense cloud in the middle?


LASER is afterall, LIGHT. If you put in a opaque block(say clouds) between source and target, then how do you expect it to designate the target?

ASG
06 Dec 08,, 12:36
Just saw this gif (http://jj.am/gallery/v/GIFs/A10_strafes_motorcycles.gif.html) yesterday,can anyone confirm this is a GAU-8 firing or are they cluster bombs?Personally I think it's the GAU-8 firing at 3900 RPM, but some people think these are cluster bombs:confused:

Thats no way the Cannon.


It is definitely a CBU, dropped by some other aircraft other than the one which is filming.

Following is a A-10 strafe.

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tGWkljwZ8

The effects on the ground are more of in a straight line. In the GIF above, the explosions start in the middle and then random explosions on all sides.


Also, you can see the Laser designator marker slide down towards the end of the playback.

jlvfr
06 Dec 08,, 12:37
LASER is afterall, LIGHT. If you put in a opaque block(say clouds) between source and target, then how do you expect it to designate the target?

Indeed. I remember reading that (some) grenades from tank smoke launchers have a really thick, oily smoke, precisely for these situations.

Nauticus
06 Dec 08,, 14:18
Thats no way the Cannon.


It is definitely a CBU, dropped by some other aircraft other than the one which is filming.

Following is a A-10 strafe.

http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=r2tGWkljwZ8

The effects on the ground are more of in a straight line. In the GIF above, the explosions start in the middle and then random explosions on all sides.


Also, you can see the Laser designator marker slide down towards the end of the playback.
I know the A-10 used to have a selectable RoF which is between 2100 RPM and 4200 RPM,and now they are fixed to fire at 3900 RPM,could the one in the video you posted was firing in the lower mode? Would that make a difference?:confused:
another angle from the same attack:http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/3761/hmmmmok3.gif (http://img529.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hmmmmok3.gif)
link to the original video:http://www.apacheclips.com/media/990/A-10_vs_Taliban_on_bikes/

ASG
06 Dec 08,, 14:32
The explosions are too randomly placed to be a cannon, IMO.

Unless 3 or 4 aircraft are firing at once on the targets, I reckon its a CBU.

GGTharos
06 Dec 08,, 14:45
It could still be a single aircraft, firing from longer range (An A-10 will use the gun from up to 5nm slant range, thus giving it a large CEP) ... to me the video looks more like a strafing run than a CBU.

The reason is that you see the fire 'walk up' the road, then 'walk back down' - CBU's don't tend to have this pattern - they just blanket explosions 'walking' in one direction.

So it looks like the pilot walked the pipper up the road and then back down the road. This is just an opinion though so don't quote me on it.

Jimmy
06 Dec 08,, 16:24
Same for me...but I'm no expert.


Isn't the spread area a bit wide? I'd have thought the shots would be somewhat closer...

You can see the aircraft jink in the middle of the clip. It could be a CBU, but it doesnt look all that different from some strafe videos I've seen.

Operator
14 Dec 08,, 03:42
The A-10 has non-afterburning twin GE
The Su-25 Frogfooot on the other hand has twin R-195 (MiG-21 variant) engine and this makes the plane capable of Mach1+ flight.




Not saying you're wrong, but I've yet to find a source that puts the SU-25 over Mach.

GGTharos
14 Dec 08,, 04:35
The Su-25 does not use a single-piece elevator ... that makes it unsuitable for flying at mach (basically, compression effects would cause you to lose control of the aircraft, just based on those alone)


Not saying you're wrong, but I've yet to find a source that puts the SU-25 over Mach.

Stan
15 Dec 08,, 13:25
Has any country ever thought about or requested to buy the A-10 apart from America?

Just wondering. They are such useful close air support planes.

There was recently a piece in the Defence news saying that the UK may withdraw the harrier in 5 years time to save cash. I wondered if they might consider a lease deal on the A-10 - commonality with USA using shared airbases in Afghanistan. Would be interesting.

jlvfr
15 Dec 08,, 14:33
I doubt it. Let's face it, the A-10 is simply too "mission-specific", ie a pure short-range (relatively speaking) air-support plane, that (like the SU-25) pretty much demands total air superiority to operate. Most air forces are too small to aford (or even need) such a dedicated plane. Most just take planes that can perform as many missions as possible... hence the comercial sucess of the F-16...

Stan
15 Dec 08,, 14:59
Given that the A-10 would never be sent in without air superiority im not too worried about the size of the RAF - given that in this day in age we are very very unlikely to go into a situation with out US support and complete air superiority. I wonder though if the british wish to maintain an independant source of close air support would facilitate and instigate the look at purchsing a limited number of A-10's with which to achieve this.

Im talking limited numbers of 10-20 planes.

jlvfr
15 Dec 08,, 16:41
I wonder though if the british wish to maintain an independant source of close air support would facilitate and instigate the look at purchsing a limited number of A-10's with which to achieve this.

Im talking limited numbers of 10-20 planes.

They had that, it was called Jaguar: cheap to operate, highly capable, could deploy anywhere... loved by all, and it still got the axe, due to costs (apparently...); so, getting an even more speciallised plane is out of the question...

And even the RAF is too small these days. It's down to a few strike/recon/air support craft (GR4), the new multipurpose fighter/interceptor Typhoon (fast replacing the F3), and the Harrier, who does duty as naval fighter (er...), air support and recon. Whatever the RAF gets next is going to have to full severall shoes (naval fighter, air support, etc); other wise, it will soon become the USAF-RAF Command :))

avon1944
22 Dec 08,, 00:34
Not saying you're wrong, but I've yet to find a source that puts the SU-25 over Mach.
I have never seen it in print but, one of the pilots in the Wing's (2 hour) special, "Red October" made mention of it! That the Su-25 could go faster than Mach 1. They were surprised for they had previously thought its performance was like the A-10. It was said in passing because all of the F/A-18 pilots wanted a ride in the Su-25, while some of them flew in the MiG-29 they stated the Su-25 was a plane that was more fun to fly!

Adrian

Kommunist
22 Dec 08,, 19:26
I have never seen it in print but, one of the pilots in the Wing's (2 hour) special, "Red October" made mention of it! That the Su-25 could go faster than Mach 1. They were surprised for they had previously thought its performance was like the A-10. It was said in passing because all of the F/A-18 pilots wanted a ride in the Su-25, while some of them flew in the MiG-29 they stated the Su-25 was a plane that was more fun to fly!

Adrian

Yup, I've seen that, and also the fact that it basically uses 2x Mig21 (variants) engines, one of which was sufficient to put the 21 easily over Mach1.5

Stitch
22 Dec 08,, 20:12
Yup, I've seen that, and also the fact that it basically uses 2x Mig21 (variants) engines, one of which was sufficient to put the 21 easily over Mach1.5

I'm still having trouble beliving a straight-wing, sub-sonic, CAS aircraft could break the sound barrier, even with two "MiG 21" engines; also, those two engines are of the non-afterburning variety, so it's hard to see how it could develop enough thrust to exceed M1.

Kommunist
24 Dec 08,, 12:28
I'm still having trouble beliving a straight-wing, sub-sonic, CAS aircraft could break the sound barrier, even with two "MiG 21" engines; also, those two engines are of the non-afterburning variety, so it's hard to see how it could develop enough thrust to exceed M1.

Well, to be honest, my source was the "Discovery - Wings of the Red Star: Su-25" show. In that, the Su-25 pilots said that the plane was indeed capable of M1+ flight.
So, I dont know whether this is possible or not, but i think that there is no reason for the Russian pilots to lie.

jlvfr
24 Dec 08,, 12:46
I'm still having trouble beliving a straight-wing,

The leading edge of the wing is not straight...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25

Andrey Egorov
24 Dec 08,, 12:49
It was prohibited to fly over 0,82 Mach on Su-25 due to wings flatter. General Staff wanted to go supersonic, but bureau failed this for two reasons - CAS never demand supersonic and Tbilisi Airplane Plant was unable to secure necessary precision of wing manufacturing.

My source is Oleg Samoylovich's book "Near Sukhoy". He was a deputy of chief designer in Sukhoy at the time.

Kommunist
24 Dec 08,, 12:57
Wel, then it means that the Su-25 pilots pushed the plane beyond its official threshold, even though it was prohibited?

Andrey Egorov
24 Dec 08,, 14:14
Or maybe Discovery mixed up 1000 km/h (0,82M) with M itself?

bugs
24 Dec 08,, 15:04
Or maybe Discovery mixed up 1000 km/h (0,82M) with M itself?
you might be right about that
...
:biggrin:

Stitch
24 Dec 08,, 15:52
The leading edge of the wing is not straight...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-25

I realize it's not straight, but the trailing edge is; and even wiki says it is of "moderate sweep", not enough to qualify it as a supersonic airfoil.

Kommunist
24 Dec 08,, 17:09
I realize it's not straight, but the trailing edge is; and even wiki says it is of "moderate sweep", not enough to qualify it as a supersonic airfoil.

Ya, its not meant for supersonic flight, but may be it can do it, with possible damage to the airframe.

Jimmy
24 Dec 08,, 18:22
B-52: America's oldest supersonic intercontinental bomber

Kommunist
24 Dec 08,, 18:44
B-52: America's oldest supersonic intercontinental bomber

:eek:

jlvfr
24 Dec 08,, 19:53
I realize it's not straight, but the trailing edge is; and even wiki says it is of "moderate sweep", not enough to qualify it as a supersonic airfoil.

True, but it might be enough to, maybe in a shallow dive, with an empty plane, to hit Mach 1...

avon1944
24 Dec 08,, 21:19
Or maybe Discovery mixed up 1000 km/h (0,82M) with M itself?


Or maybe Discovery mixed up 1000 km/h (0,82M) with M itself

That is not what the Blue Angle pilots were saying when they were discussing what a surprise flying the Su-25 was to them. They distinctly stated the Su-25 was capable of going faster than Mach 1.0.

Adrian

Andrey Egorov
24 Dec 08,, 21:55
OK, fine... maybe later in production supersonic capabilities were achieved. But it's clearly stated in that book, that 1 Mach is the last thing needed for this bird. Its 25mm titanium bathtub or 4 tons of loadweight are much more useful in attack dive.

Kommunist
28 Dec 08,, 16:48
Okay, so the Mach part is finally settled.
But how about A2A? I know that both are CAS aircraft, but SUPPOSE if both came up against each other, which one would be the better platform to be in? At least on paper/theoretically?

jlvfr
28 Dec 08,, 16:58
Okay, so the Mach part is finally settled.
But how about A2A? I know that both are CAS aircraft, but SUPPOSE if both came up against each other, which one would be the better platform to be in? At least on paper/theoretically?

I can think of at least one definite advantage the A-10 would have in a dogfight: it's canopy. The A-10's pilot has full 360 vision, unlike the Su-25.

Kommunist
28 Dec 08,, 18:36
I can think of at least one definite advantage the A-10 would have in a dogfight: it's canopy. The A-10's pilot has full 360 vision, unlike the Su-25.

Agreed. Just for arguments sake:biggrin:, wouldn't the awkward position of the engines block some field of vision in the 6 o' clock region?

ASG
31 Dec 08,, 19:18
The A-10 or the Su-25 were not meant for A2A combat. The only purpose of heaters that each carry is for self-defense. In real world, none of these would knowingly engage each other or other aircraft(except may be choppers) unless threatened.

Jimmy
01 Jan 09,, 01:59
He pretty much said that when he asked the question.

It's pretty cool when A-10 or Tornado guys chime in during an air-to-air shot debrief at Red Flag or something like that. Everybody's head turns when the Hog driver says, "Stop, valid for kill..." At that point an Aggressor pilot usually starts sliding down in his seat.

ArmchairGeneral
01 Jan 09,, 02:29
He pretty much said that when he asked the question.

It's pretty cool when A-10 or Tornado guys chime in during an air-to-air shot debrief at Red Flag or something like that. Everybody's head turns when the Hog driver says, "Stop, valid for kill..." At that point an Aggressor pilot usually starts sliding down in his seat.

:tongue:

beez26
01 Jan 09,, 07:33
I dont know much about the SU-25 but in all honesty I would pick the A-10 it just looks mean!!!!!